癌症护理质量测量:症状和临终关怀。

Karl Lorenz, Joanne Lynn, Sydney Dy, Ronda Hughes, Richard A Mularski, Lisa R Shugarman, Anne M Wilkinson
{"title":"癌症护理质量测量:症状和临终关怀。","authors":"Karl Lorenz,&nbsp;Joanne Lynn,&nbsp;Sydney Dy,&nbsp;Ronda Hughes,&nbsp;Richard A Mularski,&nbsp;Lisa R Shugarman,&nbsp;Anne M Wilkinson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically identify quality measures and the evidence for them-to support quality assessment and improvement in the palliative care of patients with cancer in the areas of pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify important gaps in related research.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in English 1995-2005. We also conducted an extensive Internet search of professional organizations seeking guidelines and other grey literature (i.e., not published in peer-reviewed journals) using similar terms and attempted to contact all measure developers.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We searched using terms for each domain for patients (adults and children) with a cancer diagnosis throughout the continuum of care (e.g., diagnosis to death). Pain and depression searches were limited to cancer, but we searched broadly for dyspnea and ACP, because the evidence base for dyspnea is more limited and experts advised that ACP measures would be generalizable to cancer. Measures were included if they expressed a normative relationship to quality and included a measurable numerator and denominator. Citations and articles were each reviewed/abstracted by two of six palliative care researcher/clinicians who described populations, testing, and attributes for each measure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search identified 5,187 titles, of which 4,650 were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 articles, only 25 contained measures: 21 on ACP, 4 on depression, 2 on dyspnea, and 12 on pain. Ten relevant measure sets were identified: ACOVE, QA Tools, Cancer Care Ontario, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Dana-Farber, Georgia Cancer Coalition, University Health Consortium, NHPCO, VHA, and ASCO. We identified a total of 40 operationalized and 19 non-operationalized measures. The most measures were available for pain (12) and ACP (21), compared with only 4 for depression and 2 for dyspnea. Few of the measures were published, and few had been specifically tested in a cancer population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A large number of measures are available for addressing palliative cancer care, but testing them in relevant populations is urgently needed. No measures or indicators were available to evaluate the quality of supportive pediatric cancer care. Basic research is urgently needed to address measurement in populations with impaired self-report. Funding field testing of highest quality measures should be an urgent patient and family-centered priority to meet the needs of patients with cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 137","pages":"1-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781080/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cancer care quality measures: symptoms and end-of-life care.\",\"authors\":\"Karl Lorenz,&nbsp;Joanne Lynn,&nbsp;Sydney Dy,&nbsp;Ronda Hughes,&nbsp;Richard A Mularski,&nbsp;Lisa R Shugarman,&nbsp;Anne M Wilkinson\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically identify quality measures and the evidence for them-to support quality assessment and improvement in the palliative care of patients with cancer in the areas of pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify important gaps in related research.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in English 1995-2005. We also conducted an extensive Internet search of professional organizations seeking guidelines and other grey literature (i.e., not published in peer-reviewed journals) using similar terms and attempted to contact all measure developers.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We searched using terms for each domain for patients (adults and children) with a cancer diagnosis throughout the continuum of care (e.g., diagnosis to death). Pain and depression searches were limited to cancer, but we searched broadly for dyspnea and ACP, because the evidence base for dyspnea is more limited and experts advised that ACP measures would be generalizable to cancer. Measures were included if they expressed a normative relationship to quality and included a measurable numerator and denominator. Citations and articles were each reviewed/abstracted by two of six palliative care researcher/clinicians who described populations, testing, and attributes for each measure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search identified 5,187 titles, of which 4,650 were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 articles, only 25 contained measures: 21 on ACP, 4 on depression, 2 on dyspnea, and 12 on pain. Ten relevant measure sets were identified: ACOVE, QA Tools, Cancer Care Ontario, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Dana-Farber, Georgia Cancer Coalition, University Health Consortium, NHPCO, VHA, and ASCO. We identified a total of 40 operationalized and 19 non-operationalized measures. The most measures were available for pain (12) and ACP (21), compared with only 4 for depression and 2 for dyspnea. Few of the measures were published, and few had been specifically tested in a cancer population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A large number of measures are available for addressing palliative cancer care, but testing them in relevant populations is urgently needed. No measures or indicators were available to evaluate the quality of supportive pediatric cancer care. Basic research is urgently needed to address measurement in populations with impaired self-report. Funding field testing of highest quality measures should be an urgent patient and family-centered priority to meet the needs of patients with cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 137\",\"pages\":\"1-77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781080/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统地确定质量措施及其证据,以支持癌症患者在疼痛、呼吸困难、抑郁和提前护理计划(ACP)领域的姑息治疗质量评估和改进,并确定相关研究的重要空白。数据来源:MEDLINE, CINAHL和PsycINFO 1995-2005年英文版。我们还对专业组织进行了广泛的互联网搜索,寻找使用类似术语的指导方针和其他灰色文献(即,未发表在同行评审期刊上的文献),并试图联系所有度量开发人员。回顾方法:我们在整个治疗过程中(例如,从诊断到死亡)使用每个领域的术语搜索被诊断为癌症的患者(成人和儿童)。疼痛和抑郁的搜索仅限于癌症,但我们广泛搜索了呼吸困难和ACP,因为呼吸困难的证据基础更有限,专家建议ACP措施可以推广到癌症。如果它们表达了与质量的规范关系,并包括可测量的分子和分母,则包括测量。引用和文章分别由六名缓和治疗研究者/临床医生中的两名进行审查/摘要,他们描述了每种测量方法的人群、测试和属性。结果:检索到5187篇文献,其中4650篇在摘要综述中被排除。在537篇文章中,只有25篇包含了测量方法:21篇关于ACP, 4篇关于抑郁,2篇关于呼吸困难,12篇关于疼痛。确定了十个相关测量集:ACOVE、QA工具、安大略癌症护理、新斯科舍省癌症护理、丹娜-法伯、乔治亚州癌症联盟、大学健康联盟、NHPCO、VHA和ASCO。我们总共确定了40项可操作措施和19项非可操作措施。治疗疼痛(12)和ACP(21)的方法最多,而治疗抑郁的方法只有4种,治疗呼吸困难的方法只有2种。这些措施很少被发表,也很少在癌症人群中进行过专门的测试。结论:针对姑息性癌症治疗有大量可行的措施,但迫切需要在相关人群中进行测试。没有任何措施或指标可用于评估支持性儿童癌症护理的质量。迫切需要基础研究来解决自我报告受损人群的测量问题。为最高质量措施的实地试验提供资金应成为以患者和家庭为中心的紧急优先事项,以满足癌症患者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cancer care quality measures: symptoms and end-of-life care.

Objectives: To systematically identify quality measures and the evidence for them-to support quality assessment and improvement in the palliative care of patients with cancer in the areas of pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify important gaps in related research.

Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in English 1995-2005. We also conducted an extensive Internet search of professional organizations seeking guidelines and other grey literature (i.e., not published in peer-reviewed journals) using similar terms and attempted to contact all measure developers.

Review methods: We searched using terms for each domain for patients (adults and children) with a cancer diagnosis throughout the continuum of care (e.g., diagnosis to death). Pain and depression searches were limited to cancer, but we searched broadly for dyspnea and ACP, because the evidence base for dyspnea is more limited and experts advised that ACP measures would be generalizable to cancer. Measures were included if they expressed a normative relationship to quality and included a measurable numerator and denominator. Citations and articles were each reviewed/abstracted by two of six palliative care researcher/clinicians who described populations, testing, and attributes for each measure.

Results: The literature search identified 5,187 titles, of which 4,650 were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 articles, only 25 contained measures: 21 on ACP, 4 on depression, 2 on dyspnea, and 12 on pain. Ten relevant measure sets were identified: ACOVE, QA Tools, Cancer Care Ontario, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Dana-Farber, Georgia Cancer Coalition, University Health Consortium, NHPCO, VHA, and ASCO. We identified a total of 40 operationalized and 19 non-operationalized measures. The most measures were available for pain (12) and ACP (21), compared with only 4 for depression and 2 for dyspnea. Few of the measures were published, and few had been specifically tested in a cancer population.

Conclusions: A large number of measures are available for addressing palliative cancer care, but testing them in relevant populations is urgently needed. No measures or indicators were available to evaluate the quality of supportive pediatric cancer care. Basic research is urgently needed to address measurement in populations with impaired self-report. Funding field testing of highest quality measures should be an urgent patient and family-centered priority to meet the needs of patients with cancer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信